I can envision a professional darkroom technician, working for a major photographic consortium, having to (or being taught by mentors how to) use markup such as was illustrated - so that additional prints could be made by other printers.

Working for myself, I make sketches on my notes. But they are very rough - generally a few dodge/burn notes (that I would know anyway if I reprinted the negative). I re-read my notes later to see what I used for f/stop and enlarger height - the notes are reliably useful for that. I get it that some printers don't need notes, or ignore them if they make them. Most of the time I am printing a new negative anyway, so the notes don't help in that case.

When we try to expose and develop negatives for the perfect printable negative, it's not because we expect to be able to print without controls. It's just to improve the statistical possibility that any one negative won't be really hard to print. It's just a plain good habit.

Most of my negatives do not require such heroic measures as the sketches show. But then none of my prints has hit the heart and soul of the public. I hope if it happens, that the particular negative is easy to print. Otherwise, I will farm out the work to Bob Carnie.

But I imagine things are different when the negative you have to print has ALREADY hit the big time. Then you HAVE to work with the negative you've got. Chances are it's a bear to print, because the wonderful photographer who took the photograph... Was most likely NOT as capable a technician as you. I am speaking statistically, not with any one photographer in mind... A photographer who takes an amazing photograph is statistically likely to possess less technical ability than the typical APUG correspondent.

My point is that I think it's practically a given that a "Lottery Winner" will require complex dodging and burning. I think the drawings are real.